[1.9-1.10] Hangar

[allista]

12 hours ago, drdeath said:

Got something strange here: All of a sudden, all stats on the Asteroid hatch read NaN, Volume and size both, and also in the tank editor. It was working fine this afternoon, I built and tested a mono tank in the hatch. some time after I destroyed the tank again, it seems to have gone wahoonie-shaped on me. @allista, have you ever experienced something like that?

No, but this doesn't sound good  I'll try to reproduce it, thanks!

[drdeath]

3 hours ago, allista said:

 I'll try to reproduce it, thanks!

Anything I can do to help you?

[allista]

1 hour ago, drdeath said:

Anything I can do to help you?

So far I was unable to reproduce it.

So if you can do it again, it would be a great help if you could describe the steps to reproduce it.

[Haifi]

Ehh...

Sorry, its Me again. I've got another problem. I'm not sure but this could also be a problem of the claw nature of the asteroid hatches (so stock bug maybe?).

The Hatch is still connected to the asteroid.

Spoiler

 

As you can see, the hatches move away from their initial positions. Time warp could be the culprit here, although i never timewarped while viewing the asteroid.

The shifting is getting worse over time, when i look at the asteroid in several savestates, the gaps and distortions become more and more pronounced... The hatches sat flush once.

I guess the claw was never intended for long term -fixed- connections...

 

Edit: Just had an idea, maybe we could get a KIS attachable hatch (so no claw involved), because all other station parts I mounted to the asteroid using KIS don't drift.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Haifi
Added Idea

[drdeath]

3 hours ago, allista said:

So far I was unable to reproduce it.

So if you can do it again, it would be a great help if you could describe the steps to reproduce it.

I will try. Would it help if I gave you the savegame?

[allista]

1 hour ago, drdeath said:

I will try. Would it help if I gave you the savegame?

Depends on the list of mods you use 

[allista]

2 hours ago, Haifi said:

Ehh...

Sorry, its Me again. I've got another problem. I'm not sure but this could also be a problem of the claw nature of the asteroid hatches (so stock bug maybe?).

The Hatch is still connected to the asteroid.

  Hide contents

 

As you can see, the hatches move away from their initial positions. Time warp could be the culprit here, although i never timewarped while viewing the asteroid.

The shifting is getting worse over time, when i look at the asteroid in several savestates, the gaps and distortions become more and more pronounced... The hatches sat flush once.

I guess the claw was never intended for long term -fixed- connections...

 

Edit: Just had an idea, maybe we could get a KIS attachable hatch (so no claw involved), because all other station parts I mounted to the asteroid using KIS don't drift.

This indeed could be a claw problem. The attachment functionality is pure-stock.

And thank you for the idea with KIS. I'm not sure I want it to be a dependency just yet, but I can at least look at the code. What do you use to attach to an asteroid with KIS? A concrete base?

[Haifi]

Quote

27 minutes ago, allista said:

This indeed could be a claw problem. The attachment functionality is pure-stock.

And thank you for the idea with KIS. I'm not sure I want it to be a dependency just yet, but I can at least look at the code. What do you use to attach to an asteroid with KIS? A concrete base?

 

I use the stock   BZ-52 Radial Attachment Point  and mount, once fixed to the asteroid, a docking port to it. Quite bland solution, but works sufficiently well.  Lately im using USI Konstruction ports, by compressing these i can so to say weld anything directly to the attachment point.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Haifi

[Haifi]

Hmm, you actually don't need it as dependency, I was thinking of it more like an alternate part, my method should work with the hatch as it is now... I just don't know if the grapple module would conflict the attachment. And if I connect without using the grapple, if the rest of your modules will work?

I'll do some testing tomorrow and report my experiences.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Haifi

[DStaal]

2 hours ago, allista said:

This indeed could be a claw problem. The attachment functionality is pure-stock.

And thank you for the idea with KIS. I'm not sure I want it to be a dependency just yet, but I can at least look at the code. What do you use to attach to an asteroid with KIS? A concrete base?

As far as KIS is concerned, an asteroid is just another part, right?  So as long as you can pick up and attach the part you're attaching, should there be a problem at all?  (I mean, does it matter in your code if the hatch is attached via a claw or some other way to the asteroid 'part'?)

If it doesn't, then you shouldn't need a dependency.  You just have a part with appropriate mass/size that a Kerbal can move it around - which could just mean an MM patch to modify carry volume, I believe.  (Well, and have it being a fairly low mass, otherwise you'll need a lot of Kerbals on hand.)

[drdeath]

48 minutes ago, allista said:

Depends on the list of mods you use 

Oh, it's a loooooooong list... However, thanks to a little mod called Kaboom, I cut away all the exotic parts, so you should be able to make do with just Hangar and ART, which are probably the relevant ones anyways. You should get some unloadable ship messages when starting this up, that's OK. The relevant ones are the asteroids at about 1500000m above Kerbin. Here it is, just unzip it into your saves folder: https://filebin.net/xlssae4f6hd4k7z9

[SCESW]

I would like to start out by saying Thank You for your contributions to KSP and I look forward to your collaborations with RoverDude.  (I added you to my Patreon list)

Okay, onto the 'issue' at hand.  I started a new game using the Galileo Planets pack as well as your Hangars mod and most of RoverDude's mods.  I took a mission to "Rescue a Kerbal" in low Gael orbit (the Galileo equivalent to Kerbin).  Since my tech level is low, I do not have access to the Claw yet.  However, I have been able to rescue a few Kerbals so far (I prefer to rescue them from my 'competitors' instead of hire them).

When I arrived in orbit, I found one of your Fairing Hangars as the command pod.  The problem is, there is no way for the Kerbal to EVA out of your Fairing Hangar.   :-(
http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/96099157753776276/92BDB4E873BC92FEEEFBA0FBDF83C64BBCC0E008/

Also, if I might offer a suggestion... your Skycrane is severely overpowered in the Career mode.  It does far too many things too early in the technology tree and takes away from a lot of the challenge that makes the career mode fun.  I chose not to use it because it feels 'cheaty'.  In fact, I thought that Roverdude's skycrane was overpowered until I used yours.  Fortunately, I can just not use it... however, I feel that it detracts from the rest of your mod when you have such an overpowered item so early in your mod's technology tree.  Just my opinion, of course.

That said, I do like the idea of no-part 'upgrades' in the technology tree.  Perhaps make the initial skycrane very weak (similar to building it with parts available in the tech tree at its level/cost), then make us purchase upgrades later in the tech tree to improve the Skycrane's capabilities.

Thanks again!

[allista]

7 hours ago, SCESW said:

I would like to start out by saying Thank You for your contributions to KSP and I look forward to your collaborations with RoverDude.  (I added you to my Patreon list)

Okay, onto the 'issue' at hand.  I started a new game using the Galileo Planets pack as well as your Hangars mod and most of RoverDude's mods.  I took a mission to "Rescue a Kerbal" in low Gael orbit (the Galileo equivalent to Kerbin).  Since my tech level is low, I do not have access to the Claw yet.  However, I have been able to rescue a few Kerbals so far (I prefer to rescue them from my 'competitors' instead of hire them).

When I arrived in orbit, I found one of your Fairing Hangars as the command pod.  The problem is, there is no way for the Kerbal to EVA out of your Fairing Hangar.   :-(
http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/96099157753776276/92BDB4E873BC92FEEEFBA0FBDF83C64BBCC0E008/

Also, if I might offer a suggestion... your Skycrane is severely overpowered in the Career mode.  It does far too many things too early in the technology tree and takes away from a lot of the challenge that makes the career mode fun.  I chose not to use it because it feels 'cheaty'.  In fact, I thought that Roverdude's skycrane was overpowered until I used yours.  Fortunately, I can just not use it... however, I feel that it detracts from the rest of your mod when you have such an overpowered item so early in your mod's technology tree.  Just my opinion, of course.

That said, I do like the idea of no-part 'upgrades' in the technology tree.  Perhaps make the initial skycrane very weak (similar to building it with parts available in the tech tree at its level/cost), then make us purchase upgrades later in the tech tree to improve the Skycrane's capabilities.

Thanks again!

Thank you for your support!

The incident with Fairings Hangar is unbelievable! Am I understand this correctly: the contracts system generated a Kerbal-rescue mission and placed the kerbal inside the Fairings because it has command capabilities? If so, it's very strange, because an empty Fairings Hangar is, for all intents and purposes, a probe-core; there's simply no room for the crew (CrewCapacity is set to 0 in the config). Or is the mission is to retrieve the part itself?

I agree the Skycrane is overpowered (for the sake of low part count); but there's no easy way to implement the gradual increase in functionality that you propose. In TCA it is possible because all TCA Modules are in fact pieces of one PartModule over which I have full control. But the Skycrane (I assume you mean the SpaceCrane part from Ground Construction?) is just a part full of stock modules. So the only two things I can do is to either strip some modules away (making it just a structural part with fuel) , or move it further to the end of the TechTree. The third option: to create a framework that would do what you describe with any part with any modules -- worths a new plugin.

[drdeath]

2 hours ago, allista said:

So the only two things I can do is to either strip some modules away (making it just a structural part with fuel) , or move it further to the end of the TechTree.

To tell the truth, the skycrane stuck a little sideways with me too. Hurra for low part counts, but I'm simply not one for all-in-one solutions. They smack too much of pre-cut paper planes. It's the same thing I criticize about Lego for years now: If all parts are specialized and highly integrated, it takes the creativity out of it. If all I have to do is stick together two or three parts that only fit together one way, where's the fun? To get back to KSP, there is (was?) that moon lander mod, where you can basicly stick together an apollo moonshot from pre-cut, pre-scored parts. Where's the fun in that? When I first went to the Mun, I flew unmanned 37 times, until I had all the ship construction, the engineering, the tanks, the maneuvers, the lander construction etc, etc, figured out. That was where the fun was at! The actual being-on-the-moon? Well, Kerbal gets out, Kerbal plants flag, Kerbal gives EVA report, Kerbal takes surface sample, Kerbal gets in. Boooo-ring!!!

[SCESW]

1 hour ago, allista said:

The incident with Fairings Hangar is unbelievable! Am I understand this correctly: the contracts system generated a Kerbal-rescue mission and placed the kerbal inside the Fairings because it has command capabilities? If so, it's very strange, because an empty Fairings Hangar is, for all intents and purposes, a probe-core; there's simply no room for the crew (CrewCapacity is set to 0 in the config). Or is the mission is to retrieve the part itself?

I agree the Skycrane is overpowered (for the sake of low part count); but there's no easy way to implement the gradual increase in functionality that you propose. In TCA it is possible because all TCA Modules are in fact pieces of one PartModule over which I have full control. But the Skycrane (I assume you mean the SpaceCrane part from Ground Construction?) is just a part full of stock modules. So the only two things I can do is to either strip some modules away (making it just a structural part with fuel) , or move it further to the end of the TechTree. The third option: to create a framework that would do what you describe with any part with any modules -- worths a new plugin.

   It was not a mission to retrieve a part... it was a mission to Rescue a Kerbal.  In the screenshot I linked, it is referred to as "Dable's Heap".  I had performed 5 similar missions before the Fairing Hangar showed up, and completed 4 more missions afterwards.  The Fairing Hangar only appeared in 1 of 10 similar missions.
   I used the 'cheat' command menu to cancel the mission.  Since there is no way to know which ship model that quest picks until you actually fly up there, it makes for a rude awakening when you close in and realize it is a model with no doors for EVA.  I do not have the claw yet in this play through, so I have not received any missions to retrieve parts.

   I understand why you created the SpaceCrane, as it complements your hangars.  In each play through I create my own sky cranes so I understand the usefulness of them.  The 'issue' I had with your SpaceCrane is that it feels like it should be higher up the technology tree considering how well it works for the price investment.

   As I move up the technology tree, I plan to test your hangars with all sorts of arrangements since I tend to build very large bases that bring even my powerhouse of a PC to a standstill.  For my PC, at least, lights seem to cause the biggest slowdown.  The more lights I use, the slower everything runs.  Turn off the lights and my game zooms, even with LOTS of parts and textures. 
   If I knew how to code, I would probably make a 'Base Light'.  A single light on a tall tower that had a HUGE radius capable of lighting an entire base without the need to have lots of small lights.  Of course, that has nothing to do with this mod (unless you include lots of lights on your hangars).
 
   I'll let you know if I find any other oddities.   :-)

[DStaal]

For the 'Kerbal spawning in a Fairings Hanger' - stock issue.  Solution is this mod:

 

[Haifi]

Hey there

So, today I tested to mount the asteroid hatch without the claw... I simply added a forward node to it and used a radial attachment point and 2 konstruction ports to weld it to the asteroid, its now firmly in place. But your code seems to query specifically for the claw attachment, or it gets confused because the hatch is not directly connected to the asteroid, but to the radial attachment point. The fix hatch permanently option will not work, it tells me that there is nothing to fix to.

Maybe a slim, light frame hatch that can be handled by 2 Kerbals on EVA would be the best option, surface attachable like the radial attachment point.

 Best regards

Haifi

[Esquire42]

Is there a possible way to easily remove hanger functionality from the stock cargo bays? The "open bay doors"/"open" tweakables can't coexist with each other and don't work consistently.

[0111narwhalz]

6 minutes ago, Esquire42 said:

Is there a possible way to easily remove hanger functionality from the stock cargo bays? The "open bay doors"/"open" tweakables can't coexist with each other and don't work consistently.

Pretty sure there's a MM patch you can just get rid of. I don't have the files in front of me at the moment, so I can't verify.

[Esquire42]

Just now, 0111narwhalz said:

Pretty sure there's a MM patch you can just get rid of. I don't have the files in front of me at the moment, so I can't verify.

There wasn't anything mentioned in the OP so I was assuming it was more complicated than that!

[0111narwhalz]

1 minute ago, Esquire42 said:

There wasn't anything mentioned in the OP so I was assuming it was more complicated than that!

Well, it is the preferred method of modifying stock parts.

[drdeath]

11 minutes ago, 0111narwhalz said:

Well, it is the preferred method of modifying stock parts.

That's true. Learning a bit of MM can let you do most things with a part, provided they have been done before.

[linuxgurugamer]

38 minutes ago, Esquire42 said:

Is there a possible way to easily remove hanger functionality from the stock cargo bays? The "open bay doors"/"open" tweakables can't coexist with each other and don't work consistently.

Are you referring to TweakableEverything?

[Esquire42]

10 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Are you referring to TweakableEverything?

No, although that's a lovely mod. There is (now was in my install) a MM patch for Hangers that added that functionality to stock cargo bays. It added the mod's "open bay doors" toggle to cargo bays (meant to be used when the cargo bay is used as a hanger) on top of the standard "open" tweakable. However, these two didn't always work well together: clicking open wouldn't open the doors, nor would clicking open bay doors. 

[allista]

10 hours ago, Esquire42 said:

No, although that's a lovely mod. There is (now was in my install) a MM patch for Hangers that added that functionality to stock cargo bays. It added the mod's "open bay doors" toggle to cargo bays (meant to be used when the cargo bay is used as a hanger) on top of the standard "open" tweakable. However, these two didn't always work well together: clicking open wouldn't open the doors, nor would clicking open bay doors. 

What you describe must be a bug of some sort. The MM patch I use to install hangar functionality into stock cargo bays also removes the stock animation module, so there should be only one option to open/close the doors. I'll check the configs, maybe something has changed inside the stock parts recently. Meanwhile you can disable the patch (GameData/Hangar/MM/Squad.cfg) by simply changing its extension to anything other than .cfg (I would suggest using .cfg_, so that you always have the original extension visible). Or you can just remove it and wait for an update that fixes things.

*hm... I've just checked the configs and everything seems to be in order. Will investigate further.